Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:41:48 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:09:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:06:07 -0400
>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
>>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 17:33:24 +0100
>>Hi,
>>I have been following this debate but trying to keep out of its
>>personal edges as I don't wish to say anything that might offend
>>people that I consider friends. When in truth I don't have
>>fundamental disputes with Bruce, Dennis or Jerry.
>>As for Jerry distrusting the essence of the main Gulf Breeze
>>case but trusting Bruce Maccabee. I don't find that odd. I feel
>>the same way. Bruce clearly knows his stuff. I listen to what he
>>says about photo cases.
>Gee, thanks.... but how would you know? Just because I say
>things that SOUND or APPEAR logical doesn't mean they are.
>>Like Jerry I don't always agree with his >findings,
>Are you referring to photographic findings? And by what logic do
>you reject my photographic findings? Is is because what I say
>does not seem consistent with non-photoraphic information from
>other sources? Or are you able to independently evaluate my
>photographic findings? And, if so, why pay any attention to what
>I say?
Hi,
I dont wan't to drag this down further with needless argument.
Which is why I am stearing clear of many UpDate discussions that
I might otherwise get involved with. They can seem to end up
being personalised for no good reason. I prefer not to talk
people politics but ufology.
I dont understand if you view the above as criticism when I
clearly thought it was support for your approach.
I respect your views on photographic cases so I always listen to
them. They have at times made me think again about the doubts I
(often) have with photo cases. I am happy to say that. But I
cannot proclaim that I agree with everything you said just as I
would not expect anyone to say that about me. Independent
thought and views on a case is something we should cultivate. We
are Ufologists not Ewefologists (oops, sorry British irony humour
overload).
I approach a photo case expecting it not to be a real UFO but
being willing to be convinced that it is. Its the philosophy I
teach investigators here, as opposed to assuming the case is
real until that verdict is disproven. That subtle difference is
an important ethos to my mind but it is merely a practice and I
am not suggesting it is the correct approach - simply the one
that I follow.
>From this premise I had to be persuaded that Gulf Breeze was
real, not unpersuaded that it was not. This probably imposes a
stricter requirement for evidence but I am happy to live with
that.
The truth is that any case is a summation of witness testimony,
physical evidence, photo analysis and gut feelings about its
rightness in the scheme of things. It is perfectly possible to
acknowledge your findings on photo analysis whilst not
necessarily sharing the empasis you are quite reasonably might
place upon them when making conclusions about a whole case. So I
say that in some cases I am more cautious than you seem to be,
not because I dispute your photo analysis (I would not presume
to do so) but because when I weigh this alongside the other
factors you have to take into account I dont necessarily regard
the full picture in the same light.
But I am not suggesting there are many cases of this sort. There
are not. Nor am I proposing that I am right and you are wrong in
those that do exist. Because the truth is we dont know. There
are no absolutes in UFOlogy just gradations of opinion. We all
have our balanced verdicts on specific cases. Sometimes they
will conflict. My point is that this does not conflict with my
ability to regard you as a skilled analyst whose views on a case
I regard as important reading because I know it to be based on
thorough assessment of the optics involved.
In case I have to explain it, that was meant to be a
supportative compliment not an attack.
Best wishes,
Jenny